Wednesday, April 06, 2022


It's reasonable for single women to avoid poor men

Jacqueline Atulip

There is a growing movement of men who resent women who expect and require men to spend their money in exchange for a woman’s time, companionship and courtship. I certainly will not place the blame squarely on men for this shift. The pervasive feminist ideology continues to deliver an extreme version of women’s independence that would deny both the presence and importance of a woman’s basic femininity, while glorifying and promoting a financial model where men receive the same benefits from women that they always received, at half the price. How sway?!

Yes, there are increasingly more women in the workforce than there used to be, but this doesn’t negate the fact that the average woman still expects and requires a man to be a provider. Whether or not he is the SOLE provider is a personal choice. Nonetheless, a woman respects, desires, and prefers a man with more resources and the men with the most resources will always have the most and best selection when it comes to picking a mate.

It’s not a superficial desire, it’s survival. If all men are created equal, I could just as easily love a wealthy one, as a “struggling” one, especially if I have to deal with the same relationship challenges from both.

When I have conversations about this with friends, associates, social settings, the entire group becomes divided. Without fail, insults, complaints, and derogatory comments always rear their ugly heads. Instead of accepting this as a fact, or even simply my myopic worldview, men almost always label me a gold digger or sarcastically wish me luck in my journey.

It makes a “financially struggling” man’s ego feel better about not being able to obtain a certain kind of woman by trying to convince her that she probably won’t be able to obtain the kind of man she wants, either. But for every New Age, hyper-liberal, forward-thinking “genderless” geared male, there are about 50 more men who are making the necessary money and are pursuing women with my exact philosophy, with reckless abandon.

If it works for the parties involved, why are you so disgruntled? Shouldn’t you be off somewhere trying to make more money so you don’t have to shed your “broke” tears about how transactional women are and how hard it is to find a woman who prioritizes your character over what’s in your wallet? Why not pursue the legions of women who wholeheartedly believe and support the notion of building with a man?

NEWSFLASH! Women who want financially successful and secure partners are not required to entertain broke men. If you believe that a woman will die alone and miserable, is the solution to lower her standards and settle for a life that she does not want? These women are already building a life that they want independent of a man. Contrary to popular erroneous assumptions, they are not sitting around filing their nails awaiting a knight in shining armor to come and rescue them from a poverty-stricken life. They are catching flights, eating well, shopping, building businesses, and more.

They want partners that match and supersede the standards that they already established for themselves. After they get married and decide to have children, they deserve partners that will be able to sustain this life should they desire to take a break and nurture their children and prioritize their families.

Desiring money is not vapid. We simply can not live without it. Convincing women that they are superficial and undeserving of a certain quality of life is low vibrational and irrational. Convincing the vast majority of women that they’ll never have the man that they desire is just a cover for the insecurity you feel as a man who can’t deliver what is being required or a woman who never thought to require and desire the same. Vilifying economic success or dismissing the importance of the role money plays in our daily lives does not impact the reality of how pertinent money is.

It’s bitter broke men who lack ambition, that would rather try to shame women about having standards and push the 50/50 paradigm that has severely damaged the dating pool. Instead of convincing women that don’t want broke men, why they should see the potential in a man and or struggle with him while he self-actualizes, why not just find a woman that wants to build with you? Or who shares a similar life philosophy?

The problem is that these men want the women who don’t want them and to that, I say, “women value men with resources. Make more of it or shut up.”

*************************************************

Conservatives celebrate Musk's Twitter stake as 'WIN' for free speech

Billionaire Elon Musk became Twitter’s largest shareholder, sparking celebration from conservatives who predict freedom of speech will be ushered back onto the platform.

"If Musk helps restore @Twitter to its free speech roots and moves it away from its left-wing censorship regime, it will be perhaps the most heroic and public-serving action I have seen a billionaire take in my lifetime," Claremont Institute senior fellow Jeremy Carl posted to Twitter.

Reports first surfaced Monday that the Tesla CEO bought a 9.2% stake in the social media company. His shares dwarf that of former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who has over a 2% stake in the company, and other shareholders.

Musk, who has described himself as a "free speech absolutist," now owns 73,486,938 shares of Twitter, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, valued at $2.89 billion based on Friday's closing price.

Twitter has long come under fire from conservatives and free speech advocates for censoring conservative viewpoints. The tech giant permanently banned former President Donald Trump from the platform in 2021, blocked the New York Post’s story in 2020 on Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop, and locked conservative satire site The Babylon Bee out of its Twitter account in March for awarding transgender Biden administration official Rachel Levine a fictitious "Man of the Year" award.

Conservatives celebrated the announcement on Monday, urging for Trump’s return to the platform and lauding it as a turning point for free speech in big tech.

The purchase comes after Musk ran a public poll on the platform on March 25 asking: "Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?"

***********************************************

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey bans abortion after 15 weeks, introduces limits on gender reassignment surgery and bans transgender athletes from participating in school sports

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed bills into law Wednesday that banned abortion after 15 weeks, outlawed gender reassignment surgery for anyone under the age of 18 and put limits on sports participation for transgender girls.

The bill outlawing abortions past 15 weeks also contains a penalty for physicians who violate the law, as they would face felony charges and potential suspension of their licenses. The bill does not include exemptions for cases of incest or rape.

'In Arizona, we know there is immeasurable value in every life - including preborn life,' said Ducey, a Republican. 'I believe it is each state's responsibility to protect them.'

Florida lawmakers passed a similar 15-week abortion ban earlier this month that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign. Other states are considering similar bans or passing versions of a ban enacted in Texas last year that bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, which the Supreme Court has refused to block.

Bills targeting abortion and transgender rights have been popular with the conservative base in states where Republicans dominate but could be politically risky in a battleground states where Democrats have made significant inroads.

The Arizona abortion legislation mirrors a Mississippi law now being considered by the Supreme Court. The bill explicitly says it does not overrule a state law in place for more than 100 years that would ban abortion outright if the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that enshrined the right to abortion in law.

Ducey is an abortion opponent who has signed every piece of anti-abortion legislation that has reached his desk since he took office in 2015. He said late last year that he hoped the Supreme Court overturns the Roe decision.

The president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona called the 15-week ban just the latest in a series of 'unrelenting attacks' on a woman's right to choose by Arizona Republicans.

But State Sen. Nancy Barto, the Republican sponsor of the bill, has said she hopes the High Court upholds Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks.

'The state has an obligation to protect life, and that is what this bill is about,' Barto said during a State Senate debate last month.

Meanwhile, Arizona joins a dozen other states with limits on sports participation for trans girls and becomes the third state to try and limit health care options for transgender teens.

Until two years ago, no state had passed a law regulating gender-designated youth sports. But the issue has become front and center in Republican-led statehouses since Idaho lawmakers passed the nation's first sports participation law in 2020. That law is now blocked in court, along with another in West Virginia.

Republicans have said blocking transgender athletes from girls sports teams would protect the integrity of women's sports, claiming that trans athletes would have an advantage. Ducey echoed that sentiment in his signing statement.

'The reason is simple, and common sense – this is a decision that will dramatically affect the rest of an individual's life, including the ability of that individual to become a biological parent later in life,' Ducey said.

He also inked a bill that requires all public schools and private schools that compete against them 'to expressly designate their interscholastic athletics teams based on the biological sex of the participating students.'

'Every young Arizona athlete should have the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities that give them a sense of belonging and allow them to grow and thrive,' he said regarding the bill.

Many point to the transgender collegiate swimmer Lia Thomas, who this month won an individual title at the NCAA Women's Division I Swimming and Diving Championship.

But there are few trans athletes in Arizona schools. Since 2017, about 16 trans athletes have received waivers to play on teams that align with their gender identities out of about 170,000 high school athletes in the state, according to the Arizona Interscholastic Association.

Critics said the legislation dehumanizes trans youth to address an issue that hasn't been a problem. Just 16 transgender high school athletes have received waivers to play on the team that aligns with their gender identity in the last five years. They said decisions about health care should be left to trans children, their parents and their health care providers.

'We're talking about legislating bullying against children who are already struggling just to get by,' Democratic Rep. Kelli Butler said during the House debate on the sports bill last week.

The Republican governors of Utah and Indiana this week vetoed bills banning transgender girls from girls sports, calling the issue virtually nonexistent in their states. Utah's Republican lawmakers overrode the governor's veto Friday, and Indiana lawmakers were considering doing the same.

New laws typically take effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns in Arizona, which would make this law effective by late summer if it is not successfully challenged in court.

**********************************************

Why Joe Biden’s ‘billionaire tax’ is doomed to fail

The highest inflation in 40 years, Ukraine blunders and an approval rating at new lows. Joe Biden and the Democrats are facing a mountain to climb heading into this year’s midterms.

In an attempt to get his presidency back on track, Biden is trying to salvage his Build Back Better agenda with a new billionaire tax that will target America’s richest.

The proposals for the 2023 budget will attempt to create a minimum 20 per cent tax rate on the incomes of households worth $US100 million ($133 million). But Biden’s budget “Hail Mary” ahead of November’s midterm elections might already be doomed as he struggles to clear practical and political hurdles.

“This is effectively their last roll of the dice,” says James Knightley, ING chief international economist. “At the moment nationally the Republicans are ahead by some 3 or 4 percentage points and that would imply quite a heavy beating at those elections.”

The proposal is not just aiming to tax America’s rich more on their income but also to target unrealised gains on investments, which makes the proposal harder to execute and far more radical.

This widening means that shares that rise in value will be taxed even if the assets have not been sold. If the taxed person does not have the cash to pay the tax, they could have to sell assets. However, rich households will be able to spread out tax payments on unrealised gains. It makes the measures more akin to the wealth taxes that have divided the Democratic party between radicals and moderates.

Chris Krueger, a policy analyst at Cowen, says this will be an attempt to salvage Biden’s fiscal policy “in a great rebrand of Build Back Better into an inflation-fighting, supply-chain-fixing, deficit-reducing panacea”.

The White House estimates that 0.01 per cent of Americans would be affected by the tax, meaning that it could hit more than 30,000 people, rather than just the country’s 700-plus billionaires. The changes would force Tesla chief executive Elon Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the world’s two richest men, to pay an additional $US50 billion and $US35 billion in tax respectively, according to estimates for The Washington Post.

The Democrats risk losing their slim majorities in both chambers of Congress in the midterms, effectively paralysing Biden’s domestic plans. However, persuading his own party to back a budget including a wealth tax will prove tricky. In an attempt to win over the party’s stubbornly resistant moderates, Biden’s budget plans aim to reduce the deficit by $US1 trillion over the next decade. The White House hopes the tax targeting billionaires would raise $US360 billion over the next decade.

Knightley says it stands a much greater chance than previous attempts to introduce a tax on billionaires, but adds that “it’s still going to be a very slim probability”.

While the radical wing of the Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, has called for wealth taxes, a similar plan to hit billionaires last year fell apart after a backlash within the party.

The Democrats also have a razor-thin majority in the Senate, which is split 50-50 with Vice-President Kamala Harris being the tiebreaker.

Just one rebel can block the party’s plans. West Virginia’s moderate Democratic senator Joe Manchin has been a thorn in the side of the president’s Build Back Better plans, rebelling over the size of the spending and whether it would worsen inflation.

Manchin opposed the billionaire tax proposals last year, saying: “I don’t like the connotation that we’re targeting different people.”

Paul Ashworth at Capital Economics says the “extremely radical” proposals are unlikely to win support. “This is never going to pass in a normal budget because that requires 60 votes in the Senate, which means 10 Republicans have to support it,” he says. “It could pass via reconciliation on a simple majority, but Democrats have struggled to get Manchin to support such a bill. Throwing in this tax-raising measure doesn’t change that maths.”

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

No comments: